Okay my last post here. But I think we can all agree in broad terms that killing is wrong. While I have never killed a human being I think a really broad application of this statement is what Chaos is is discussing. I find the implication that one must evaluate such a broad statement in the light of self defense ludicrous. It is a heated situation and if I say say found someone raping my daughter I doubt I would shoot them. Some things are personal and with a tip of the hat to those of the other gender they should be man to man so make it hand to hand. Of course I am also a MMA instructor of sorts so I digress.

Once imminent mortal danger is removed differing people will have differing stances on the "right" course of action. But when there is that imminent danger I doubt anyone has the time for philosophical debate. In short I think the meat of such an argument has more of a place in the class room than in reality. And that is the real problem with idealistic stances when it comes to about anything. I suppose they would work if everyone held themselves to such high moral standards. Thinking that even the majority of people do is a mistake and doomed to failure. It is a comparison of apples and oranges because I think most of us agree the fellow in the original article is and was out of line but comparing it in broad terms as wrong to kill in self defense regardless is simply naive.

As a first point, I think it's worth noting the nuance in chaoslord's argument. It's in essence that killing is always a moral wrong and that should be kept in mind... but not that there aren't also morally right reasons that may lead someone to kill. In his view those reasons don't impact on the morality of the killing itself. It's a moral value theory which either separates out the moral acts (and thus their values) or views moral value as being non-transitive.

At the risk of over-simplifying or putting words in chaoslord's mouth, it comes across to me as a theory that views killing as a last resort and even then a necessary evil; circumstances may dictate that it is reasonable or even necessary but it is still an evil.

That somewhat plays into my point/response where I can see a moral problem with killing in defence of the home. Stepping away from a deep metaphysical argument for a moment I don't think that too many people would have an issue when someone breaks into your home and makes you fear for your life. But if someone breaks into the home and is then in the process of running away when they are, to use the gun example which prevails in this discussion, shot? I can certainly see the moral issues where in a situation where someone is in no fear of personal harm (let alone in fear of their life) and the intruder is retreating (but still within the home), and the person kills the intruder. Yet would that not count as defence of the home? What if they were retreating but with some of the person's property?

But isn't that the entire point of morals? To determine what is right or wrong?

I can agree with that, but I disagree with chaoslord's stance that killing in self defense is morally wrong. He seems to be literally equating it with the same cold blooded murder done by a serial murderer (correct me if I am wrong though) and saying that it is as morally bad. To me and others it isn't. Not by a long shot. Sometimes killing is justified, as in the conditions already laid out by me and Val and Retribution and IO (and they put it more elegantly than I do). At those times, legally or morally, people don't find very much wrong with it, and as has been pointed out, there is justified homicide. If something like that happened, I wouldn't have time to have a metaphysical conversation with myself, it would very likely be kill or be killed, protect myself/family/home. Any doubts would come after it was over.

Morals alone do not say what is right or wrong simply because everyone's morals are different. That's what laws are for so people know where they stand legally.

Morals alone do not say what is right or wrong simply because everyone's morals are different. That's what laws are for so people know where they stand legally.

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

And that is a great thing that the laws do not reflect one linear perspective of morality. More often than not, the extent of permissible behavior under the law is wider than the extent of permissible behavior under any one particular moral interpretation. In other words, all of us may agree that it is morally unjust to be a jerk and curse someone out, but such behavior may not be illegal. In the same manner, I may not feel that abortion is suited for my personal life, but I am not trying to push this moral view onto others, let alone modify the law.

To chaoslord29: Instead of dismissing the moral relativist stance that many posters here are holding as a "wholly untenable position," realize that it is one of the few ways to unify a country of diverse and varying perspectives.

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

Laws can also dictate what is right and wrong. As has been pointed out, morals differ for everyone, what is moral for one person isn't for another. Laws can dictate what is legal and what isn't as well as what is right and what is wrong. An example is slavery. For a very long time, slavery was morally accepted and legal in many nations (early slavery, not all of it but some of it mind you, could be more of an indentured servitude rather than the slavery that existed in the 17-19th centuries). Obviously for the South, it was believed to be a morally acceptable thing, yet in the North it wasn't moral so it took a bloody civil war to decide the issue. Just like the law is needed to decide when it is allowable to kill and when it isn't, sometimes it is also morally right to kill.

I do not disagree that laws can reflect someone's views of right and wrong and a general theory of criminal law is that it is a way to dictate society's disapproval of certain actions, but the idea that the law "creates" right and wrong (and if it dictates that, it must also create it) seems utterly baseless to me.

The first objection is how am I meant to determine which laws dictate right and wrong and which don't? You've suggested the laws which cover murder and slavery as examples of those which dictate right and wrong but what separates such laws from those which govern which side of the road we drive on?

It also seems that argument leads to some pretty repugnant situations. To argue that the law dictates right and wrong (as opposed to morality) is to say that the reason slavery is wrong isn't due to the moral issues about human rights, freedom or the like but instead because a law says it's wrong. If the law didn't exist or was repealed then slavery would thus become "right".

It also seems to me that if the theory that law dictates right and wrong was true then the question of whether it is "right" to follow a "wrong" law becomes nonsensical; if the law is the arbiter of right and wrong then it is impossible to conceive a situation where there can even be an objection to a "wrong" law (a law cannot be "wrong" as it is the law which dictates right and wrong). I do not agree; there certainly can be a debate about whether there is a (moral) duty to follow a law but that comes from other (moral) reasons.

That also touches on civil disobedience. While there have again been extensive debates about the moral character of civil disobedience, if the law dictates right and wrong then such debate becomes meaningless; as the law dictates right and wrong it is impossible for acts of civil disobedience to be "right" as they inherently involve breaking the law (and are thus "wrong").

I'd also ask where the laws that supposedly dictate what is right or wrong come from? To take the slavery example, slavery was made illegal. Why was it made illegal? If morality does not determine "right" from "wrong" then what was the source of the arguments against slavery?

Again, laws simple dictate what is legal or illegal. It may be that the law are set up to reflect what society believes is right or wrong (although if the law dictates right and wrong then that position also becomes untenable) but that does not make them the arbiters of what is right or wrong.

I do not disagree that laws can reflect someone's views of right and wrong and a general theory of criminal law is that it is a way to dictate society's disapproval of certain actions, but the idea that the law "creates" right and wrong (and if it dictates that, it must also create it) seems utterly baseless to me.

The first objection is how am I meant to determine which laws dictate right and wrong and which don't? You've suggested the laws which cover murder and slavery as examples of those which dictate right and wrong but what separates such laws from those which govern which side of the road we drive on?

It also seems that argument leads to some pretty repugnant situations. To argue that the law dictates right and wrong (as opposed to morality) is to say that the reason slavery is wrong isn't due to the moral issues about human rights, freedom or the like but instead because a law says it's wrong. If the law didn't exist or was repealed then slavery would thus become "right".

It also seems to me that if the theory that law dictates right and wrong was true then the question of whether it is "right" to follow a "wrong" law becomes nonsensical; if the law is the arbiter of right and wrong then it is impossible to conceive a situation where there can even be an objection to a "wrong" law (a law cannot be "wrong" as it is the law which dictates right and wrong). I do not agree; there certainly can be a debate about whether there is a (moral) duty to follow a law but that comes from other (moral) reasons.

That also touches on civil disobedience. While there have again been extensive debates about the moral character of civil disobedience, if the law dictates right and wrong then such debate becomes meaningless; as the law dictates right and wrong it is impossible for acts of civil disobedience to be "right" as they inherently involve breaking the law (and are thus "wrong").

I'd also ask where the laws that supposedly dictate what is right or wrong come from? To take the slavery example, slavery was made illegal. Why was it made illegal? If morality does not determine "right" from "wrong" then what was the source of the arguments against slavery?

Again, laws simple dictate what is legal or illegal. It may be that the law are set up to reflect what society believes is right or wrong (although if the law dictates right and wrong then that position also becomes untenable) but that does not make them the arbiters of what is right or wrong.

How can you even ask that? Laws dictate what society finds right and wrong. It puts limits on what is allowed. This isn't to say that morals cannot and do not influence what laws are voted on and enforced, but the law is what dictates what is -culturally- acceptable. The laws constitute what is legally right and wrong. It cannot and should not be concerned with morals or ethics. The phrase; 'justice is blind' is an important one to remember when you're dealing with laws that govern a nation that is a mix of hundreds of cultures and nationalities from immigrants. To be able to have a functioning society, the laws have to be the things that decide what is right and wrong for the society to work.

Others here can put it on more clear terms than I can, so apologies if I'm not being clear.

Others here can put it on more clear terms than I can, so apologies if I'm not being clear.

consortium11, I think what Zakharra is trying to say (and please forgive me, if I am misinterpreting) is that the American legal system in its truest sense, does not attempt to emulate the individual moralities of any single constituency. You do make a reasonable point that to at least some degree, the law is developed through our shared sense of morality. However, the legal system tends to encompass very basic, fundamental moral principles that tend to be shared by a vast majority of the population, and tend to be much more behaviorally permissive as compared to any individual group or individual's sense of morality.

For example, on a fundamental level, we can all agree that premeditated murder is morally unjust, and thus, this basic sense of shared 'morality' (if you would like to use this term here) is implemented in the law.

However, with regard to the issue being discussed in this thread, this unanimity of moral opinion is not present. Several posters so far, including myself, seem to feel that it is perfectly within their moral judgment to utilize lethal force in self-defense when it comes to a violent, confrontational situation. Contrary to what chaoslord29 indicated, his moral opinions are by no means a prevalent moral viewpoint among Americans, and thus, do not suggest the need for modification of the law.

Some laws may reflect what society finds right and wrong but they do not dictate it. If they dictated it then society would not have found them right or wrong prior to them becoming laws... and that seems to me to be an incoherent position.

This isn't to say that morals cannot and do not influence what laws are voted on and enforced, but the law is what dictates what is -culturally- acceptable.

I think this may be a somewhat loose definition of culturally acceptable. There are many things that are considered unacceptable in certain cultures that are not illegal. And I'm not sure I can agree that it is the law that determines a culture and what is acceptable within it.

This is a pretty controversial position, and one that's only really gained prominence in the last 200 years or so. To give a very simple example, the US Constitution expressly sets out that it (and everything that comes from it) is based on morality and ethics. The entire theory of natural law (which has been considered the basis of law for most of human history) is based on the idea that the law and morality are intrinsically linked. Even legal positivism, the opposite position, generally accepts that the basis of legal systems has to be from a moral stand point.

To further this point, why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? I would argue the reasons are moral and ethical; they are the very basis for those laws. They predate the law and the law reflects them

So at points where the majority of Americans saw no issue with slavery there was no need for an adjustment of that law? I think you're rapidly heading towards a tyranny of the majority there.

I am not making any commentary on whether adjustment of the law is necessary or unnecessary, based on our individual sense of morality. I am simply suggesting that it is usually when a growing and rising segment of the population begin to hold moral opinions that differ from the status quo, that the push for legal modifications come about.

When it comes to social justice matters (women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc.), where certain segments of the population were actively prevented from representation, I certainly agree that this 'prevalence of opinion' concept becomes murky. But even in these situations, at least a small and growing number of sympathizers among the dominant group towards the repressed group is necessary to alter such laws. For example, segregation would never have ended in the United States had several Caucasian-Americans (as members of the dominant racial group at the time), not voiced their moral criticism of Jim Crow laws. In addition, whether feminists would like to acknowledge it or not, the work of a small yet drastically growing number of influential men over the 20th century, have been critical to the success of the women's rights movement.

My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that chaoslord29's perspectives are a "growing" perspective in the United States. There are many Americans, like myself, who feel very strongly on this issue, and if anything, this 2011 Gallup survey shows that gun-ownership in the US is at its highest levels since 1993. It is irresponsible policy to permit someone to use a firearm in self-defense, and then criminalize them for the corresponding death, especially when using poor technique while aiming can often be even more risky for others in the vicinity.

My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that chaoslord29's perspectives are a "growing" perspective in the United States. There are many Americans, like myself, who feel very strongly on this issue, and if anything, this 2011 Gallup survey shows that gun-ownership in the US is at its highest levels since 1993.

While I was trying to find data regarding a correlation between guns per capita and gun deaths per capita (not as easy as it sounds - everyone seems to want to give the 'gun deaths' statistic as a raw number), I discovered that there are more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians (roughly 101 guns per 100 people).

It is irresponsible policy to permit someone to use a firearm in self-defense, and then criminalize them for the corresponding death

LOL, I agree totally but I imagine we'd draw radically different conclusions from that premise.

I keep returning to that article you posted and commented favourably on post correction. See, at some point in that attack, the father stopped beating up "the person sexually molesting his daughter" and started beating up "the person who had been sexually molesting his daughter" - unless, I suppose, the deceased was the most single minded molester in history. And even if we allow "self-defence" to include protecting one's family, which I have little argument with, once that point was reached what you have there is revenge. He should be in jail.

The point is, "self defence" isn't entirely what anyone is talking about. If I jump out of an alley at you and point a gun, and you shoot me dead, I simply don't see how that is self-defence. I haven't done anything at that stage beyond frighten you. Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty, unless the home-owner has a gun and is willing to use it. There's no justice at all there, just civilians taking life and death matters into their own hands with no oversight or training.

I keep returning to that article you posted and commented favourably on post correction. See, at some point in that attack, the father stopped beating up "the person sexually molesting his daughter" and started beating up "the person who had been sexually molesting his daughter" - unless, I suppose, the deceased was the most single minded molester in history. And even if we allow "self-defence" to include protecting one's family, which I have little argument with, once that point was reached what you have there is revenge. He should be in jail.

It seems that you are taking a very simplistic, and perhaps even theoretical, perspective on this. A criminal does not suddenly jolt into a rational mindset and stop his actions upon being inflicted with a first, 'self-defense' blow to the head (or in this case, father-defending-daughter defense blow).

In the case of that father, what likely happened is that he witnessed this man molesting his daughter, so he punched him in the head. At that point, the molester likely was acting in "his own" self-defense, and readied his own fist to return a punch. To avoid such a situation, the father probably continued to beat up the man, which ultimately led to his death.

There is simply no way to call the police department for a 'lawful' arrest in that short period of time. You are correct, this would be the "ideal" in a theoretical sense, but in practicality, this is not feasible.

The point is, "self defence" isn't entirely what anyone is talking about. If I jump out of an alley at you and point a gun, and you shoot me dead, I simply don't see how that is self-defence. I haven't done anything at that stage beyond frighten you. Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty, unless the home-owner has a gun and is willing to use it. There's no justice at all there, just civilians taking life and death matters into their own hands with no oversight or training.

Everything you are saying is theoretically correct, if we were observers of an incident, and we know the intentions/motivations of all parties involved. But if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no time to have this sort of analytical discussion on his potential intentions. I have to fear the worst for my safety, and whomever I am with, because if I don't, a bullet will instantly kill me on the spot.

The way I see it, no one in their right mind would attempt to point a firearm of any kind at my head in public, unless they had deadly intentions. It is not a toy, it is a lethal weapon, and should be used responsibly.

That is why some of these pranksters on YouTube are really asking for something tragic with some of their 'extreme' scare pranks. If they had some sensibility, they would exercise more caution.

You know what? I don't blame the father. I personally think he deserves a medal. He defended his child - he removed a threat to his child. He did what any decent father would have done (or mother for that matter). If you think he deserves to be in jail then I have to wonder what you think the father should have done. See the man raping his daughter, turn around, go call the cops and wait for the cops to arrive and stop him? Would that make it perfectly okay then for the cops to shoot the man despite the fact that the father, by that point, allowed the man to continue harming his child?

You are wanting this shit to be clear cut and precise with no thought for the human emotion. I cannot make it any clearer than this: If you try to kill me, I am going to do my best to kill you. If you break into my house, kiss your ass goodbye, I will kill you. If you harm a hair upon my children's head, I WILL kill you.

Your rights to do whatever the hell you want ends the moment they conflict with my interests to survive, protect my family and what belongs to me.

It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

You know what? I don't blame the father. I personally think he deserves a medal. He defended his child - he removed a threat to his child. He did what any decent father would have done (or mother for that matter). If you think he deserves to be in jail then I have to wonder what you think the father should have done. See the man raping his daughter, turn around, go call the cops and wait for the cops to arrive and stop him? Would that make it perfectly okay then for the cops to shoot the man despite the fact that the father, by that point, allowed the man to continue harming his child?

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Quote

You are wanting this shit to be clear cut and precise with no thought for the human emotion. I cannot make it any clearer than this: If you try to kill me, I am going to do my best to kill you. If you break into my house, kiss your ass goodbye, I will kill you. If you harm a hair upon my children's head, I WILL kill you.

Errrm, I should probably make clear that I'm not planning on killing you. That was a little vehement there.

Regardless. Human emotion is unavoidable. What I AM wanting is for the law to be clear cut and precise. Temporary insanity is a thing, over here at least, and I misspoke slightly when I said he should be in jail. Whether he is in jail or not should be left to the legal system and a jury of his peers. Not to people shrugging and saying "Sure. Dick deserved to die. Seems fine to me"

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

And you honestly see nothing wrong with that state of affairs? You continue to think people should have guns accepting that that is the price to pay? I don't think we are gonna find common ground here. Always a pleasure talking to you though.

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

Bolded for the part I want to discuss.

I think you are wrong about that statement. I think everyone knows they are instruments of lethal potential (unless we discuss very young children - talking toddlers here - who cannot understand the concept of lethal potential) but I think that there are idiots the world over who, while knowing this, still do not care. Hence why you have the facebook pictures of kids holding guns to infants' heads. They know it is dangerous but they are also thinking the picture will look cool. Again - idiots.

You are correct with the rest of your post though. If someone pulls a gun and points it at me while I am out in public, then the only logical reason is going to be because they are going to kill me. I am most certainly not going to stop and say "Hey, I've got a question. Are you pointing that at me because you plan to shoot me or are you pointing that at me because it makes you feel cool? Like you have big balls?" Hell no. I'm going to react what, logical, is a threat to my life.

I don't see how you can talk in one paragraph about people not respecting guns and so forth and then, in the very next one, claim the only logical reason for someone pointing a gun at you is that they're going to shoot you.

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Errrm, I should probably make clear that I'm not planning on killing you. That was a little vehement there.

Regardless. Human emotion is unavoidable. What I AM wanting is for the law to be clear cut and precise. Temporary insanity is a thing, over here at least, and I misspoke slightly when I said he should be in jail. Whether he is in jail or not should be left to the legal system and a jury of his peers. Not to people shrugging and saying "Sure. Dick deserved to die. Seems fine to me"

And you honestly see nothing wrong with that state of affairs? You continue to think people should have guns accepting that that is the price to pay? I don't think we are gonna find common ground here. Always a pleasure talking to you though.

Don't know about where you live but it is routine for sex offenders to be released back in public. I am not a fan of this unless they are chemically castrated, and even then I do not feel the safest with it. Personally, I think if the sex offense is rape (of an adult or child) or the molestation of a child, the person should either be sentenced to life in a prison camp or execution.

So, let's say he just knocks the guy out. Cops haul him to jail. He goes in front of the court. He gets ten years with possibility of parole. In six years he is released for good behavior. Guess what threat to this man's child is back out on the streets. He didn't remove the threat after all.

I don't see how you can talk in one paragraph about people not respecting guns and so forth and then, in the very next one, claim the only logical reason for someone pointing a gun at you is that they're going to shoot you.

By all means then. Tell me why you would pull a gun on me if it were not to kill me. If the answer is anything but "to kill" then you do not need to ever be around guns because you do not understand the reason for them.

Don't know about where you live but it is routine for sex offenders to be released back in public. I am not a fan of this unless they are chemically castrated, and even then I do not feel the safest with it. Personally, I think if the sex offense is rape (of an adult or child) or the molestation of a child, the person should either be sentenced to life in a prison camp or execution.

So, let's say he just knocks the guy out. Cops haul him to jail. He goes in front of the court. He gets ten years with possibility of parole. In six years he is released for good behavior. Guess what threat to this man's child is back out on the streets. He didn't remove the threat after all.

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Read what I said earlier regarding the likely course of events. The father was probably continuing to act in self-defense.

By all means then. Tell me why you would pull a gun on me if it were not to kill me. If the answer is anything but "to kill" then you do not need to ever be around guns because you do not understand the reason for them.